Following The Science

[stuckinatrap]

Ok. So I've been down the #superstraight rabbit hole on Twitter and I keep coming across the same comments:

Things like:

'Transwomen are women. Read a science book'

And

'You are scientifically inaccurate. There are more than two biological sexes. Educate yourself'

So I'm attempting educating myself.

What is the science they are referencing? Is it just that DSDs exist (because that isn't evidence of more than 2 sexes as far as I am aware - just that things don't go according to plan sometimes) and clownfish?

Or is there a whole world of science of which I'm ignorant? (Which wouldn't be a surprise as I'm more of a humanities kind of a woman).

This is sort of following on from the whole 'Are we the baddies?' thread. If there is real scientific evidence and I'm wrong, I would like to be educated. It might change my mind.

Does anyone have the studies?

There are two sexes and that is a scientific fact

Only individuals but there might be a pattern?

334bu

OMG, is that for real? I can't see the light for red flags.

I'm sure it is, in part. But I can't believe for a second it is either 100% "social" or 100% "essential".

Like almost everything, it's most likely epigenetic. Genotype sets up the triggers, environment (which can include everything from prenatal hormones to social conditioning) determines which triggers are pulled and how strongly, producing the phenotype (including behaviour).

So you can't have the behaviour without the genetic component, but you also can't have it without the environmental drivers. The good news is that controlling the environment can in theory control the prevalence of the behaviour...

So you can't have the behaviour without the genetic component, but you also can't have it without the environmental drivers. The good news is that controlling the environment can in theory control the prevalence of the behaviour...

But the genetic component of being born male still exists, therefore you can only mitigate the behaviour not eradicate it, is that correct?

FWIF: Baily's not been credible since his book in 2003.

Buuut looking through the thread people in the thread have started using terms like "trans lobby," that's my time to step away.

@stuckinatrap I wish you the best and I honestly hope you can find the answers you're looking for. Whatever those answers may be.

Not to derail from the sciencey wiency masterclass, but did a poster really claim that AGP is debunked by Julia Serano who says:

"While I never really believed the cliches about women being good for only one thing, I found that sentiment kept creeping into my fantasies. I would imagine myself being sold into sex slavery and having strange men take advantage of me.

It's called forced feminisation"

And that they're not arguing either way?

Crikey, I cant wait to see their 'neutral' evidence for the pro AGP stance.

@334bu

*So you can't have the behaviour without the genetic component, but you also can't have it without the environmental drivers. The good news is that controlling the environment can in theory control the prevalence of the behaviour...*

But the genetic component of being born male still exists, therefore you can only mitigate the behaviour not eradicate it, is that correct?

Not necessarily. If you remove either component (relevant genetics or environment), you eliminate the behaviour.

In theory. And in fruit flies, mice, etc. where it's been tested. In humans, you still have free will and all that.

Removing the y genetics from someone sounds quite ...ambitious

FWIF: Baily's not been credible since his book in 2003.

According to who?

Ray Blanchard talks about the Bailey controversy here.

quillette.com/2019/11/06/what-is-autogynephilia-an-interview-with-dr-ray-blanchard/

I published my early writings on autogynephilia in specialty journals with very small circulations. I intended them for a tiny readership of clinicians who specialized in the assessment and management of gender-dysphoric patients. However, this work attracted the attention of two individuals who decided to promote it more broadly, one online (Anne A. Lawrence) and one in a book (J. Michael Bailey). These efforts, especially the book, enraged three influential trans women—two of them senior academics—who attempted to get Bailey fired from his teaching position at Northwestern University for writing it. This campaign has been documented in detail by Alice D. Dreger, a medical historian. Paradoxically, the efforts of trans activists, then and today, to completely suppress any mention of autogynephilia in public discourse has resulted in an increased public awareness of it. I think the self-defeating behavior of trans activists has persisted because the idea of autogynephilia cuts too close to the bone. If the idea had no resonance with them, they would simply have ignored it, and the idea of autogynephilia would just be one of many forgotten hypotheses of gender identity disorder.

Alice Dreger's book 'Galileo's Middle Finger', mentioned earlier in the thread, talks about this at length. It's an interesting read.

@midgedude

Removing the y genetics from someone sounds quite ...ambitious

Lol, yes! Fine in fruit flies, not so fine in humans

But it's just to illustrate that the nature vs. nurture debate is largely futile and a misconstrual of what we now know about the epigenetics of behaviour: both are necessary, neither alone is sufficient.

Buuut looking through the thread people in the thread have started using terms like "trans lobby," that's my time to step away.

Yes I can imagine it's good to have a reason to leave without engaging in any substantive discussion, when it starts getting a bit awkward reading what people you've reverently deferred to have said about "womanhood".

@Ereshkigalangcleg

Buuut looking through the thread people in the thread have started using terms like "trans lobby," that's my time to step away.

Yes I can imagine it's good to have a reason to leave without engaging in any substantive discussion, when it starts getting a bit awkward reading what people you've reverently deferred to have said about "womanhood".

Yep. I expect it doesn't get 'duller' than that.

Women have the capability for violence. Plenty of examples of women being brutal through history.

In general females are socialised out of it and boys are encouraged. See loads of Hollywood output and games to see how violence is glamorised. Dangerous men are to be feared and therefore respected.

I think a lot of male violence comes down to toxic masculinity, social acceptance about VAWG to different levels around the world, and that they can.

If women were the biggest same strongest we don't know if the violence would be reversed.

I do agree that sexual violence seems to be a predominantly male issue though.

If women were the biggest same strongest we don't know if the violence would be reversed.

If my aunt had balls she'd be my uncle, kind of thing...

But I do kind of buy though that if males weren't around, physical intimidation would be more of a winning strategy for (some) women, so prevalence would be higher. Women rapidly realise that would never work on 50% of the population.

So maybe the answer to male violence is for some aliens who are bigger and stronger to settle on Earth to put our males in their place, and discourage the strategy. Bit like "there was an old lady who swallowed a fly" though... On the other hand, men might suddenly grasp the necessity for sports classifications.

twitter.com/zaelefty/status/1332511814899412993?s=21

Might be worth a read

I was just coming to post that tweet adviceseeking

For those who wish to know what it contains,

‘Here are 40 peer-reviewed journal articles from biologists on the evolution of sex and why there are only two sexes’

With a link to PDFs on a zip drive so they are all there.

Zach had also collated ‘ all the evolutionary biology papers on the evolution of sex and the two sexes to Google Drive.’

There is an interesting book by Stephen Pinker called The Better Angels of Our Nature which investigates why society is now far less violent than it has been for millennia. And one of the answers is that women have more rights and more say in how things are run - We favour other modes of conflict resolution. We problem solve differently. - So where we have a say, violence is considered less acceptable and so reduces over time.

And there is extensive research into matriarchal societies wherever they arose on this planet showing that they are far less violent for just those reasons.

So the answer to male violence is not aliens, but for women to have more opportunities to shape society. More laws criminalizing violence against women. Policies explicitly protecting women. International shaming campaigns targeting violence against women.

Those are measures readily available to us, and in many places these are measures already enacted. Because they work.

The problem is, of course, that many of these measures are currently being undermined.

(FYI, where the ideas behind humanism and egalitarianism are successfully implemented, male violence in general falls. And both of these belief systems see the equality of women as instrumental in achieving their aims.)

Rubble of Empires is pretty good at breaking down TRA Pseudoscience

And Benjamin Boyce spoke to Emma Hilton and Colin Wright recently

Also Zach Elliott is very good.